Responses to Common Arguments

Since the fall semester of 2006, licensed individuals have been allowed to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah’s nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). (Scott Jaschik, “Gun Rights vs. College Rights”, Inside Higher Ed, September 11, 2006, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/11/guns)

As of spring 2018, that’s more than 333 U.S. college campuses allowing licensed concealed carry for a combined total of approximately 2,000 (biannual) college semesters, an average of almost six semesters (three years) per campus, with zero reports of resulting deaths, assaults, or suicide attempts.

Likewise, no state has seen a resulting increase in gun violence as a result of legalizing concealed carry (all 50 states now allow some form of concealed carry), despite the fact that licensed citizens regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, and banks. Virtually every peer-reviewed study on the subject, including studies by the National Academy of Sciences* and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center**, has concluded that there is no evidence that licensed concealed carry leads to an increase in either violent crime or gun deaths.

According to 2002-2006 statistics*** from the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas concealed handgun license holders were five and a half times less likely than members of Texas’s general population to commit manslaughter and four times less likely to commit murder.

Return to Arguments – Guns on campus would lead to an increased number of suicides by college students.

Studies* show that 90% of suicides are committed in the home. Because most college students over the age of twenty-one (the minimum age to obtain a concealed handgun license in most states) live off campus, allowing concealed carry on college campuses would have very little impact on the ability of college students to possess firearms in their homes and, therefore, little to no impact on the overall number of suicides by college students. Furthermore, we would caution anyone to be careful when evaluating studies that purport to show ‘prove’ that firearms increase the risk of suicide. Something can only be ‘proven’ if a randomized-controlled trial is completed; such a trial would be impossible to complete in this case.

*“Youth and Adolescent Suicide: A Guide for Educators,” Oregon Resiliency Project, University of Oregon, 2003; After Suicide: A Ray of Hope for Those Left Behind, Eleanora Betsy Ross, 2001

Ask anyone in a ‘right to carry’ state when he or she last noticed another person carrying a concealed handgun. The word ‘concealed’ is there for a reason. Concealed handguns would no more distract college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs.

In most states with ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws, the rate of concealed handgun licensure is between 1% and 3%. Therefore, statistically speaking, a packed 300-seat movie theater contains between three and nine individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns, and a shopping mall crowded with 1,000 shoppers contains between 10 and 30 individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns. Students who aren’t too afraid to attend movies or go shopping and who aren’t distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be illegally carrying a firearm shouldn’t be distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be legally carrying a firearm. To emphasize the point once more, these same students carry responsibly and without distracting others when they go to the movies and malls on the weekends. What changes when they step onto a college campus?

Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, and numerous other locations where concealed handgun license holders are already allowed to carry concealed handguns. The widespread passage of shall-issue concealed carry laws has not led to spates of shootings or gun thefts at those locations.

Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A Secret Service study* into school shootings concluded that school shooters do not simply snap and that a person’s downward spiral toward violence is typically accompanied by numerous warning signs.

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

Return to Arguments – A dangerous person might jump someone who is carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm.

Even assuming that this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual.

Return to Arguments – Dorms are notoriously vulnerable to theft. It would be too easy for someone to steal an unattended firearm from a dorm.

The vulnerability of dorms to theft does not necessitate a campus-wide ban on concealed carry by licensed individuals. There are numerous other options, from community gun lockups to small, private gun safes that can be secured to walls, floors, bed frames, etc.

Although accidental/negligent discharges do occur, they are rare, and serious injuries or death resulting from such incidents are even rarer. As of spring 2018, SCC has document seven resulting negligent discharges at campus carry colleges:

On September 1, 2017, a cadet at Texas A&M negligently discharged a firearm in a Corps of Cadet dormitory. The cadet who discharged the firearm was not a license concealed carry holder, and was allowed to hold the firearm by a licensed individual. The bullet traveled through a wall, entering an unoccupied room, before lodging in a bed frame.

On April 26, 2017, a student at Utah Valley University reached into his backpack and negligently discharged a handgun he was carrying. The discharge resulted in no injuries.

On September 16, 2016, a student at Tarleton State University negligently discharged his firearm in a university residence hall. The discharge resulted in no injuries and minimal property damage.

On May 4, 2015, a police cadet at Utah Valley University was showing his handgun to a fellow cadet, on their way to a police firearms class. The gun discharged, grazing the chest of the other cadet.

On September 2, 2014, a professor at Idaho State University was carrying an unholstered handgun in his pants pocket while teaching a class. The handgun discharged, shooting him in the foot.

On November 9, 2012, a staff member at the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine was showing her gun to two coworkers. The gun discharged as she was attempting to reload it. The bullet ricocheted off a filing cabinet and nicked both her and a coworker on their legs.

On January 4, 2012, a student at Weber State University in Utah was carrying an unholstered handgun in his pants pocket while walking across campus. The handgun discharged, shooting him in the leg.

All seven incidents appear to have involved unholstered handguns. At least three involved the license holder showing the handgun to a second party, which is never a good idea, and three appear to have been caused by the license holder carrying an unholstered handgun in a pocket or backpack, which is also never a good idea. The increased danger that accompanies unholstering and handling a firearm is one of the reasons SCC vigorously fights proposals such as placing gun lockers outside of classrooms or requiring license holders to empty the chambers of their guns before stepping onto campus.

It should be noted that some locations are more prone to accidental/negligent discharges than are others. There is no question that dorm rooms—where licensed residents must occasionally handle their weapons while holstering, unholstering, loading, or unloading them—are at increased risk for negligent discharge.

Because of the increased danger associated with handling an unholstered firearm, license holders living in dorm rooms should be diligent to observe the four basic rules of firearm safety when handling their guns.

The Four Basic Rules of Firearm Safety:

Treat every gun as if it is loaded.

Never point a gun at anything you are not WILLING to destroy.

Keep your finger off the trigger unless and until the gun is pointed at something you WANT to destroy.

Be certain of the object your gun is pointed at, and be aware of anything that might be BEHIND the object your gun is pointed at and anything that might come BETWEEN your gun and the object it is pointed at.

These four rules offer redundant protections against injury or death. For example, a license holder who violates rule number three and accidentally pulls the trigger is unlikely to cause injury as long as he or she is observing rules one, two, and four.

Negligent Discharges at Campus-Carry Colleges:

On September 1, 2017, a cadet at Texas A&M negligently discharged a firearm in a Corps of Cadet dormitory. The cadet who discharged the firearm was not a license concealed carry holder, and was allowed to hold the firearm by a licensed individual. The bullet traveled through a wall, entering an unoccupied room, before lodging in a bed frame.

On September 16, 2016, a student at Tarleton State University negligently discharged his firearm in a university residence hall. The discharge resulted in no injuries and minimal property damage.

On May 4, 2015, a police cadet at Utah Valley University was showing his handgun to a fellow cadet, on their way to a police firearms class. The gun discharged, grazing the chest of the other cadet.

On September 2, 2014, a professor at Idaho State University was carrying an unholstered handgun in his pants pocket while teaching a class. The handgun discharged, shooting him in the foot.

On November 9, 2012, a staff member at the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine was showing her gun to two coworkers. The gun discharged as she was attempting to reload it. The bullet ricocheted off a filing cabinet and nicked both her and a coworker on their legs.

On January 4, 2012, a student at Weber State University in Utah was carrying an unholstered handgun in his pants pocket while walking across campus. The handgun discharged, shooting him in the leg.

These incidents are unfortunate; however, given the number of college campuses that allow licensed concealed carry and the length of time for which they have allowed it, this is still an impressive record. This record, coupled with the fact that not one campus-carry college has reported a resulting violent crime, threat of violence, suicide, or suicide attempt demonstrates that the licensed, concealed carry of handgun can be safely implemented on college campuses.

A quick glance at CDC data from 2007 (the last year for which records are available) reveals that individuals between the ages of 21 and 24, the age group most likely to carry concealed handguns on a college campus, accounted for fewer than 70 fatal gun accidents that year, nationwide. And based on consistent trends, it’s fair to assume that most (approximately 80%) of those were either hunting accidents or incidents of someone mishandling a firearm in the home. It’s highly doubtful that even one of those incidents was related to licensed concealed carry.

From 1996-2007, the State of Texas had 1,754 convictions for ‘discharge of a firearm.’ Only three of those convictions were of license holders, and it’s not certain if any of those three convictions were related to concealed carry.

Because the trigger of a properly holstered firearm is not exposed, because modern firearms are designed not to discharge if dropped, and because an applicant for a CHL must (in most states) pass a training course covering firearm safety, accidental discharges among concealed handgun license holder are extremely rare and represent, at worst, a statistically negligible risk. SCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a minor risk.

NOTE: Only about 2% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. are accidental, and most of those are hunting accidents and accidents involving firearms being openly handled in an unsafe manner. According to CDC statistics, a person is five times more likely to accidentally drown, five times more likely to accidentally die in a fire, 29 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, and 32 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning than to die from an accidental gunshot wound.

Return to Arguments – It’s unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license.

Many people are surprised to learn that 19 of the 32 victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were over the age of 21 (the minimum age to obtain a concealed handgun license in Virginia and most other states). Though it’s impossible to know how the presence of an armed concealed handgun license holder might have impacted a particular shooting, it’s conceivable that, had one of those 19 older victims had the means to stop the shooter, one or more of the 13 younger victims might have been saved.

It’s important to remember that concealed carry is about personal protection, not public protection. The fact that some students might not enjoy all of the benefits of concealed carry on campus doesn’t mean that all students should be denied the means to protect themselves on campus.

Before shall-issue concealed carry laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootouts. This did not prove to be the case. In fact, many of the law enforcement officials have since admitted that they were wrong to oppose concealed carry measures. Detroit Police Chief James Craig has even said that more CPL holders in the Motor City could further decrease violent crime in the city. The same responsible adults—age 21 and above—now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses.

Licensed concealed carry has yet to turn a debate into shootout on any of the 150+ college campuses where it’s allowed or in any of the legislative chambers where it’s allowed (i.e. the Texas Capitol, the Virginia Capitol).

Return to Arguments – The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?

This is NOT a debate about keeping guns out of the hands of college students. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would not change the rules about who can buy a gun or who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither make it easier for college students to obtain firearms nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would have no impact on the laws regulating concealed carry at bars and off-campus parties, the places where students (particularly students of legal age to obtain a concealed handgun license) are most likely to consume alcohol.

Return to Arguments – In an active shooter scenario like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse.

What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How could any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing the killer to continue undeterred? Contrary to what the movies might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last only three to ten seconds (according to law enforcement instructors). Even the real gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants and a number of bystanders, lasted only about 30 seconds and resulted in only three fatalities (no bystanders were injured). It is unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled. Even if it lasted the full ten seconds, how could ten seconds of two people shooting at each other possibly be worse than ten minutes of an assailant walking up to victims and shooting them in the head (sometimes multiple times) at pointblank range, as occurred at Virginia Tech?

Return to Arguments – The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals.

Nobody is suggesting that concealed handgun license holders be charged with the duty of protecting campuses. What is being suggested is that adults with concealed handgun licenses be allowed to protect themselves on college campuses, the same way they’re currently allowed to protect themselves in most other unsecured locations. According to a U.S. Secret Service study* into thirty-seven school shootings, ‘Over half of the attacks were resolved/ended before law enforcement responded to the scene. In these cases the attacker was stopped by faculty or fellow students, decided to stop shooting on his own, or killed himself.’ The study found that only three of the thirty-seven school shootings researched involved shots being fired by law enforcement officers.

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

Return to Arguments – Police officers typically spend four to five months in training; whereas, concealed handgun license holders usually spend one day or less.

Police officers do not spend five to seven months learning to carry concealed handguns for self-defense; they spend five to seven months learning to be police officers. Concealed handgun license holders are not police officers; therefore, they have no need of most of the training received by police officers. Concealed handgun license holders don’t need to know how to drive police cars at high speeds or how to kick down doors or how to conduct traffic stops or how to make arrests or how to use handcuffs. And concealed handgun license holders definitely don’t need to spend weeks memorizing radio codes and traffic laws.

“Contrary to what some opponents of concealed carry might claim, concealed handgun license holders don’t need extensive tactical training, because they are not charged with protecting the public—it’s not their job to act like amateur, one-man SWAT teams. All a concealed handgun license holder needs to know is how to use his or her concealed handgun to stop an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that type of training CAN be accomplished in a few hours.”

NOTE: In Texas, for example, the shooting test that must be passed to obtain a concealed handgun license meets all but one of the minimum proficiency requirements for qualifying law enforcement officers (the one exception being that officers are also required to complete a timed reload).

Return to Arguments – How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed civilians and armed assailants?

This hasn’t been an issue with concealed handgun license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It’s not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys—from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians—in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the crowd, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the crowd. Finally, if all the above fail, I think we would all agree – we’d rather take our chances with the “good guys with guns” than succumb to the “bad guys with guns.”

If you’re going to attempt to use a Taser to defend yourself against an armed assailant, you’d better hope the assailant isn’t wearing thick clothing or standing more than fifteen feet away. You’d also better hope that you don’t miss with your first shot and that you aren’t facing more than one assailant. And you’d better hope that you can escape to safety before the Taser’s effects wear off. Like handguns, Tasers are banned on most college campuses.

If you’re going to attempt to use a defense spray to defend yourself against an armed assailant, you’d better hope you bought one of the concentrated formulas that doesn’t take ten to fifteen seconds to begin working. You’d also better hope that the assailant is standing in close proximity to you and that you are in a well-ventilated location where you won’t find yourself overcome by the effects of the spray before you can escape to safety. Like handguns, defense sprays are banned on most college campuses.

NOTE: Most campus police forces tacitly approve of the use of defense sprays, or mace, despite their prohibition in almost every student handbook. We’ve often wondered why campus police departments agree that students need some method of self-defense beyond what the administration allows, but have decided to arbitrarily allow certain methods of self-defense.

Return to Arguments – Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.

If you’re going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you’d better be within an arm’s length of the assailant, be standing on firm ground, have no obstacles between you and the assailant, and be in relatively good physical condition. If the assailant is standing four feet away, you’re probably out of luck. If you’re sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you’re probably out of luck. If there is a desk between you and the assailant, you’re probably out of luck. And if you’re elderly or disabled, you’re probably out of luck. Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no match for a bullet fired from eight feet away. Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of training in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?

Return to Arguments – Some states allow citizens to be issued concealed handgun licenses at the age of eighteen.

Among the forty-four shall-issue’ states*—states where local authorities cannot require qualified applicants to “show a need” before the applicant is issued a concealed handgun license/concealed carry weapons permit—six states allow, without special provision, for any qualified person eighteen years or older to be issued a concealed handgun license. These states are Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

“Based on the FBI/Department of Justice violent crime statistics for the year 2006, the crime rates for these seven states, when ranked with all fifty states and the District of Columbia, rank as follows:

“Not only are Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota four of the five** U.S. states with the lowest crime rates, Montana has the tenth lowest crime rate, and Indiana isn’t even in the top 50%. Clearly, these states’ lenient concealed handgun laws are not breeding generations of young violent offenders. “The extraordinarily low crime rates in these six states, coupled with the fact that these states have a combined population of only about 10,900,000 (approximately 1.6 million less than the combined population of America’s two largest cities—New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA—and at approximately 1/3 the combined violent crime rate of those two cities) has led Students for Concealed Carry to focus on the majority of ‘shall-issue’ states where the minimum age to receive a concealed handgun license is twenty-one.”

*All states are currently shall-issue either in code or in practice with the exception of California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

Return to Arguments – It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe the answer to violence is more guns.

One might have just as easily told Edward Jenner, the man who discovered in the late eighteenth century that the cowpox virus could be used to inoculate people against smallpox, “It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to disease is more viruses.”

Prevention and preparedness are not mutually exclusive. In a perfect system, the two approaches to safety compliment each other. Preventive measures, such as teaching students and faculty to watch for the warning signs of mental illness and providing counseling to disturbed students, can work hand in hand with preparative measures, such as developing campus alert systems, providing additional training to campus police, and allowing the same trained, licensed adults who legally carry concealed handguns when not on college campuses to do so on college campuses.

Return to Arguments – School shootings are very rare, and college campuses are statistically very safe. There is no need to allow concealed carry on campus.

Though most college campuses—like most affluent neighborhoods—are statistically safer than the surrounding communities as a whole, most college campuses—like most affluent neighborhoods—do occasionally play host to every type of violent crime found in the rest of society, from murder to assault to rape. There are no laws prohibiting licensed concealed carry in affluent neighborhoods, and there shouldn’t be laws prohibiting licensed concealed carry on college campuses.

It makes no sense to limit licensed concealed carry to areas where danger is likely or imminent, because reasonable people tend to avoid places where danger is likely or imminent. Concealed handgun license holders carry guns in case danger finds them where they had no reason to expect it.

Furthermore, a free society always places the burden of proof on those seeking the denial of a right, to show that granting the right will cause harm. A free society never places the burden of proof on those seeking the granting of a right, to show that the right is needed. The statistics suggest that allowing concealed carry on campus won’t hurt and might help; therefore, there is no legitimate reason not to allow it.

Return to Arguments – Some professors might be afraid to issue bad grades if they know that students could be carrying guns.

Why should professors be more afraid of issuing bad grades to students who want to carry guns LEGALLY than of issuing bad grades to students who might already be carrying guns ILLEGALLY? College campuses are open environments—they don’t have controlled points of entry, metal detectors, or X-ray machines.

In light of the fact that a person unconcerned with following the rules can walk onto a college campus carrying a backpack full of guns just as easily as carrying a backpack full of books, some professors might feel more comfortable about issuing bad grades if they knew they were allowed the means to defend themselves.

Regardless of how any particular student or professor feels about the issue, laws must be based on facts, not feelings. Feeling safe or unsafe is not the same as being safe or unsafe

Return to Arguments – The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it’s been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only 15%-20% in the field.

Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm’s way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from very close range. A person doesn’t have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away.

Return to Arguments – In October of 2014, feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speech at Utah State University after receiving death threats and learning that Utah’s campus carry law would not permit the university to screen for weapons at the event.

The cancellation of Anita Sarkeesian’s speech at Utah State University was not the result of concealed carry being allowed on campus; it was the result of the university not wanting to go through the trouble to secure the venue against threats that authorities had deemed ‘not credible.’ The wisdom of the university’s decision can be debated, but the fact is that, after learning of Utah’s campus carry law, Ms. Sarkeesian asked if the university could secure the venue and screen for unlicensed weapons (allowing licensed individuals to carry their handguns into the venue). University officials—who had already promised an increased law enforcement presence, including bomb-sniffing dogs, at the event—replied that screening individual students would be too intrusive.* Aside from the university’s official explanation of protecting student privacy, it is also possible that, in light of the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian’s planned speech was not a high-profile event, the university decided that securing the venue would not be worth the financial cost (for both equipment and man-hours).

It should be noted that it is possible to write a campus carry law in a manner that allows universities to secure sensitive areas (speeches by visiting dignitaries, chemical storage facilities, biocontainment labs, etc.) with metal detectors and armed guards, so as to ensure that an area is gun-free in more than name only.

If an area is sensitive enough to merit prohibiting lawful concealed carry, it is sensitive enough to merit prohibiting unlawful concealed carry. Rather than relying on honor-system-based policies to protect highly sensitive areas, colleges and universities should invest in metal detectors and armed guards, so as to ensure that these areas are gun-free in more than name only. Campus carry laws can be written in such a way as to allow for this.

Return to Arguments – According to a study conducted by Marist College, the human brain does not fully mature until the age of 25.

There is no scientific evidence that the brain function/decision making ability of a 21-year-old is substantially or even measurably different from that of a 25-year-old; however, there is a good deal of scientific evidence to the contrary. When scientists say that the human brain does not fully mature until the age of 25, the emphasis is on the word ‘fully.’ The *vast* majority of brain development is completed by age 20. The remaining development is, in essence, finishing touches. Saying that the brain of a 21-year-old is not fully developed is like saying that a construction crew hasn’t finished building a house, simply because they still haven’t put the covers on the light switches—the statement is technically true but highly misleading.

Jay N. Giedd*, M.D., writes, “Late maturation of the prefrontal cortex, which is essential in judgment, decision making and impulse control, has prominently entered discourse affecting the social, legislative, judicial, parenting and educational realms. Despite the temptation to trade the complexity and ambiguity of human behavior for the clarity and aesthetic beauty of colorful brain images, we must be careful not to over-interpret the neuroimaging findings as they relate to public policy.”

*Jay N. Giedd, M.D., one of the pioneers in the field of neuroimaging, is a practicing child and adolescent psychiatrist and chief of brain imaging at the Child Psychiatry Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health. In an ongoing longitudinal study of more than 2000 people, Dr. Giedd combined neuroimaging, genetics, and psychological testing to explore the path and influences on the developing brain in health and illness. (http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/The_Teen_Brain__Primed_to_Learn,_Primed_to_Take_Risks/)

Return to Arguments– A 2002 Harvard University study found that students who have a firearm at college are more likely to binge drink, drive while under the influence, use illegal drugs, vandalize property, and get into trouble with the police.

The 2002 Harvard study in question reveals absolutely nothing about the legal, licensed concealed carry of handguns on college campuses; however, it does reveal quite bit about the illegal possession of firearms on college campuses.

The Harvard study is based on a spring 2001 survey of 119 four-year colleges. During the spring of 2001, the only U.S. college to allow licensed concealed carry on campus was Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA), a two-year college with fewer than 3,000 enrolled students. Therefore, none of the respondents to the Harvard survey could legally possess a gun on campus. However, in an ironic denouncement of the effectiveness of “gun-free” campuses, one fifth of the respondents who reported having a gun at college also reported living on campus, meaning that this study is less a reflection on those who want to carry guns on campus legally than on those who already have guns on campus illegally.

Furthermore, one third of the approximately 430 respondents who reported having a gun at college were under the age of 21. Given that only 30 U.S. states were shall-issue states when this study was conducted, that the rate of concealed handgun licensure was much lower in 2001 than today, and that the rate of licensure among persons of typical college age has always been extremely low, it’s highly unlikely that a statistically significant percentage of the respondents who reported having a gun at college were licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

Return to Arguments–Umpqua Community College allowed campus carry at the time of that campus shooting.

Actually, the UCC code of conduct expressly prohibited possessing a gun on campus without the written authorization of the school. The college president made clear that concealed handgun license holders were not given such authorization. She told reportersthat even the school security guard and the handful of retired police officers on the faculty were prohibited from carrying guns on campus.

Return to Arguments–Umpqua Community College was not a gun-free zone at the time of that campus shooting.
That’s technically true. As was the case at Virginia Tech during that school’s 2007 massacre, concealed carry was legal under the law but prohibited by school policy. That means that licensed visitors and guests could carry concealed handguns on campus without fear of reprisal; however, students, faculty, and staff (the people most likely to need to defend themselves on campus) could be expelled or fired for doing so.

Return to Arguments–A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that a person carrying a gun is 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault.

“[C]ompared with control participants, shooting case participants were…more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more…unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking.”

Basically, the study found that people engaging in criminal activity, working in high-risk professions, or hanging out in dangerous neighborhoods are more likely to carry a gun and more likely to be shot. This leads us to wonder if the same researchers did a follow-up study in which they found that people who carry insulin injectors are more likely to suffer from diabetes.

It’s also worth noting that the study counted individuals who had a firearm in a nearby vehicle or building as being in “possession” of a gun. How does a gun locked away in one’s car or apartment increase one’s chances of being shot on the street?

Return to Arguments-According to the Violence Policy Center, concealed handgun license holders have killed hundreds of people

The VPC’s frequently cited, regularly updated “Concealed Carry Killers” report blames the licensed concealed carry of handguns for vehicular homicides, premeditated murders, murders using weapons other than handguns, and murders and suicides committed in the home (not necessarily with a handgun). A thorough rebuttal is available HERE, but the short version is this: Even if each of the deaths cited by the VPC were actually a murder or suicide (they’re not), and even if each death were counted only once (they aren’t), and even if the licensed concealed carry of handguns were a factor in each of the deaths cited (it wasn’t), that would mean that the Violence Policy Center had implicated the roughly 5% of U.S. citizens with a concealed handgun license in less than 0.2% of all murders and suicides committed in the U.S. during that time. The Violence Policy Center is one of America’s most radical gun-control organizations, and its “Concealed Carry Killers” report is propaganda, not science.

An examination of those twenty-nine incidents reveals twenty-six in which licensed concealed carry played no part whatsoever, two in which it is highly unlikely that licensed concealed carry played any part, and one in which licensed concealed carry very well may have played a part. The one incident in which licensed concealed carry may have played a part resulted in only three murders (the minimum to qualify as a “mass killing”), took place during a confrontation at the home of the perpetrator’s ex-wife, and involved a perpetrator who should have been ineligible to own a gun, much less obtain a concealed handgun license, but still received a Pennsylvania license due to an error in the criminal database.

Return to Arguments–There was an armed student on the Umpqua Community College campus during the shooting, but he wasn’t able to help because he was afraid police would mistake him for the shooter.

The licensed student who was carrying a handgun on campus (in violation of school policy but not in violation of any law) wasn’t in the same building, much less the same classroom, where the shooting occurred. MOST school shootings happen on a campus where SOMEONE—typically police or security—is armed. Concealed handgun license holders aren’t security guards; they don’t go LOOKING for an assailant. The licensed student at UCC followed typical concealed handgun training by not attempting to interdict an incident that didn’t already involve him. Concealed carry allows a license holder to defend himself or herself against an IMMEDIATE threat; it doesn’t turn a license holder into a one-man SWAT team.

Return to Arguments–Campus carry would make encounters with police more dangerous for young men of color.

If a police officer profiles somebody because of the person’s race, the officer isn’t thinking, “This person might be a law-abiding citizen who is licensed to carry a handgun”; the officer is thinking, “This person might be a criminal who doesn’t care what the law says about carrying a handgun or shooting a police officer.” That type of profiling isn’t affected by whether a campus has an honor-system-based “gun-free” policy.

There is no evidence that campus carry leads to an increase in sexual assaults. The campus carry policy working group at the University of Texas at Austin concluded, “The evidence does not in any way support the claim of a causal link between campus carry and an increased rate of sexual assault.” The report on which opponents base this claim explicitly states that its “results certainly do not prove that concealed carry causes more crime.” The campus carry opponents touting this campus-carry-leads-to-rape theory could take extra steps to verify whether a license holder has ever been charged with sexual assault on a campus-carry campus, but they don’t want to because they know that no campus-carry college has reported a sexual assault in which an armed CHL holder was either the assailant or the victim.

Return to Arguments–According to a recent study, licensed concealed carry leads to an increase in crime in states that allow it.

The study in question is by Dr. John Donohue, a Stanford law professor and economist. Although the preponderance of peer-reviewed studies on this subject have concluded that licensed concealed carry cannot be shown to lead to an increase in violent crime, one researcher (Donohue) consistently concludes that licensed concealed carry does lead to more violent crime.

SCC is not equipped to analyze or critique the research methods employed by a particular researcher; however, we can point out five important considerations regarding Donohue’s research:

Donohue’s findings are extreme outliers that contradict most other research in this field of study. The findings of most related studies fall not within the “more crime” or “less crime” extremes but, rather, within the realm of ‘no discernible impact.’ Given the low rate at which citizens are licensed to carry handguns and the low rate at which licensed citizens are impacted by violent crime, a finding of ‘no discernible impact’ makes perfect sense.

Because of the extremely low rate at which license to carry (LTC)/concealed handgun license (CHL) holders are convicted of violent crimes, Donohue’s research hinges on the assumption that this purported increase in violent crime is the result of crimes perpetrated by LTC/CHL holders who are never convicted and/or crimes perpetrated by unlicensed criminals who are made more violent by the knowledge that law-abiding citizens may be armed.

Donohue’s 2014 study concluded that licensed concealed carry leads to an increase in nonviolent property crimes such as burglary, auto theft, and larceny (Donohue and his coauthors admit that it’s “not clear” why right-to-carry laws would lead to an increase in these crimes). The fact that Donohue’s list of affected crimes includes crimes that don’t involve guns may indicate that a third variable (something other than right-to-carry laws) is responsible for the indicated rise in crime rates.

Donohue argues that, following the peak crime era of the mid-1990s, the states that didn’t enact shall-issue concealed carry laws saw a greater drop in crime than did the states that enacted such laws. However, the few states that didn’t enact shall-issue concealed carry laws are home to many of the cities hardest hit by the crack cocaine epidemic of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s; therefore, it stands to reason that the locations that saw the greatest increase in crime during the epidemic would see the greatest decrease in crime after the epidemic.

Donohue’s non-academic track record on this subject—including his decision to sign his name to an anti-campus carry position paper that is rife with factual inaccuracies—raises serious questions about his objectivity.